The Fateful Para-Commando Assault - 1965 War

[Joe Shearer]

It's rather arbitrary, but so is almost everything in life. Ultimately, it's decided based on the current normality.

In 1965, the conflict in the Rann of Kutch was over disputed territory (and I'm not even going to get into who was at fault, that's another discussion), as was the conflict in Kashmir (the border in Kashmir isn't even recognised as an official border by either side, it's just referred to as the "Line Of Control" or "LOC"). Since India breached what is recognised by both parties as the International Border on the 6th of September (which also escalated the fighting from small skirmishes in disputed territory to full-scale operations all over the border between the two countries), that is the official start of the war, as far as I'm concerned.

Fortunately, that happens to be your own personal opinion. It doesn't count for much.I am just pointing out this reality, not publishing a rating.

The point under discussion is not the fact that the territory was disputed; it is about bad faith. Here is the relevant passage from a neutral source.

<<The area was admitted by both sides to be in dispute at the time of the Indo-Pakistani border negotiations of 1960. It was agreed at that time that further discussions would be held to explore the validity of the conflicting claims, and the two Governments agreed that pending further consideration of this dispute, neither side would disturb the status quo.

In the spring of 1965, Pakistani tanks (received from the United States as part of its Military Assistance Program) entered the Rann of Kutch. The memoirs of senior Pakistani officers later revealed that the deployment of this American-supplied armor had two objectives. The first was to entice Indian armor away from northern India, where an attack on Kashmir was planned for later in the year. The second objective was to see how strongly the United States would protest Pakistan's use of tanks it had provided, in clear violation of Pakistan's commitment. The United States did protest, but it was ignored.

The Indians became aware in January 1965 that Pakistani border police were patrolling below the Indian claim line. Pakistani patrolling south of Kanjarkot may have been going on for quite some time without the Indians knowing it. There was little doubt, however, that Pakistani occupation of Kanjarkot would have upset a long-standing status quo. When Indian patrols discovered that Pakistani posts had been established in area claimed by India, they accused Pakistan of aggression in the Rann of Kutch.>>

 

[Pak-Canuck]

British Documentary on Rann of Kutch

 

[GHALIB]

It counts as aggression but not as the start of a full-scale war. It just provides a casus belli, in which case, the argument becomes whether or not India's invasion was justified.

strange analogy.

 

[Hamza913]

that happens to be your own personal opinion.

As is this whole discussion.

The point under discussion is not the fact that the territory was disputed; it is about bad faith.

Again, something inherently subjective.

In the spring of 1965, Pakistani tanks (received from the United States as part of its Military Assistance Program) entered the Rann of Kutch. The memoirs of senior Pakistani officers later revealed that the deployment of this American-supplied armor had two objectives. The first was to entice Indian armor away from northern India, where an attack on Kashmir was planned for later in the year. The second objective was to see how strongly the United States would protest Pakistan's use of tanks it had provided, in clear violation of Pakistan's commitment. The United States did protest, but it was ignored.

And I can then argue what triggered Pakistan to resort to such a move in the first place. As I said before, this, at best, just gives India a casus belli. Pakistan itself did not start the war. India was the one that crossed the IB on the 6th of September and drastically escalated things.

 

[GHALIB]

What are the odds of success in 2019 ??

lesser than 1965 .

 

[Goku-kun]

lesser than 1965 .

that's your ignorance which makes you so ridiculous
this is probably the result of cow urine you guys drink day-night.

 

[Joe Shearer]

As is this whole discussion.



Again, something inherently subjective.



And I can then argue what triggered Pakistan to resort to such a move in the first place. As I said before, this, at best, just gives India a casus belli. Pakistan itself did not start the war. India was the one that crossed the IB on the 6th of September and drastically escalated things.

Unfortunately from your point of view, it is not just restricted to your country to decide what happened; all that has been related was public information and public knowledge. It is that information, that knowledge that has coloured the thinking of the world, that gives your country an unenviable reputation. If you think it is clever to keep arguing that Pakistan did not start the war, you are alone. Everybody else has seen through this obvious subterfuge. There is nothing like a semi-virgin.

 

[Hamza913]

If you think it is clever to keep arguing that Pakistan did not start the war, you are alone.

I don't care, popular opinion will not change the facts.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I don't care, popular opinion will not change the facts.

No, it won't. As I have been trying to explain, with patience and understanding of your difficult predicament, neither will individual opinion.

The facts are public; I have supplied more than enough to define the truth. It finally remains your own individual delusion, and one that is not shared by anybody else other than a handful of those of you who think that, by shutting your eyes tight and insisting on parroting the same thing again and again, in some magical, miraculous way, people will start thinking that you are right.

They won't.

strange analogy.

Poor fellow doesn't understand that he just contradicted himself.

 

[Hamza913]

The facts are public; I have supplied more than enough to define the truth.

No you haven't. India crossed the IB on the 6th of September, and as a result started the war. Nothing you say will change that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No you haven't. India crossed the IB on the 6th of September, and as a result started the war. Nothing you say will change that.

The war was going on. Nothing you say will change that. War is defined by actions, not by self-serving definitions.

 

[Goku-kun]

Unfortunately from your point of view, it is not just restricted to your country to decide what happened; all that has been related was public information and public knowledge. It is that information, that knowledge that has coloured the thinking of the world, that gives your country an unenviable reputation. If you think it is clever to keep arguing that Pakistan did not start the war, you are alone. Everybody else has seen through this obvious subterfuge. There is nothing like a semi-virgin.

Well, than it's even not restricted for you to decide.Yeah everything is public information e.g:battle of Chawinda(Pakistan army pushed back india from Lahore and than entered your territory).

 

[Joe Shearer]

Well, than it's even not restricted for you to decide.Yeah everything is public information e.g:battle of Chawinda(Pakistan army pushed back india from Lahore and than entered your territory).

Sure, all the events are public knowledge, and nobody is denying the battle of Chawinda. So? That does not help your position.

 

[Goku-kun]

The war was going on. Nothing you say will change that. War is defined by actions, not by self-serving definitions.

Pakistan crossed LOC you indiot not IB while you crossed IB and started war.
Post all the emojis you want to satisfy your ego but it won't change the truth.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistan crossed LOC you indiot not IB while you crossed IB and started war.
Post all the emojis you want to satisfy your ego but it won't change the truth.

Pakistan did so with armour, with all guns firing. What was that? A hunger-strike?